John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)

I thank Deputy Burke for allowing me a few extra minutes. I intend to discuss FÁS as well. I was interested to hear that the International Monetary Fund, IMF, showed an interest in FÁS and seemed to intimate that additional moneys should be given to the training agency. I was interested because at the same time I had been asking questions about the rate of job placement, in other words, the number of people who trained with FÁS and then ended up with a job.

It took three or four weeks to get the figures but I will read them to the House. As of now in 2010, only 13.7% of all trainees with FÁS get placements. That is the national percentage of placements in the country at present. The figure is down from a high of 37.1% in 2007. In 2008, the figure was 33.5% and in 2009 the figure was reduced to 16.4%. This year, there are 111,000 people training with FÁS and the figure is 13.7%. Some people may argue that the figure is very low because there is a great deal more unemployment at present.

I also asked about the figures for my constituency and the figures for Waterford are high compared to the national average. This year, the figure is closer to 20% for Waterford as opposed to 13.7%, the national figure. FÁS in Waterford achieved a 44% placement figure in 2007. This was reduced to 41% in 2008 and to 31% in 2009. For some reason, the standard in Waterford and the figures are a good deal higher than the national average. It seems the figures and standards are at variance in different parts of the country with regard to how they relate to people who train with FÁS and end up securing job placements.

The response to my parliamentary question contained a disclaimer or health warning. It stated that the figures are only the known placements whereby clients or employers have notified FÁS of the placement and, therefore, it should not reflect the total number of people placed by FÁS. I presume FÁS holds that the number could be higher because its clients or employers have not notified the agency of the placement or employment of trained workers. I am concerned because it is clear from the response that FÁS is unlike training agencies in other jurisdictions.

I contacted the Scottish training agency, which is able to determine the number of jobs achieved after a training or sustained employment lasting 13 weeks or more. That agency is aware of the number of jobs secured after training but we have no idea. The figures I received from the Skills Development Scotland agency indicate that from April 2009 to March 2010 some 48.7% of all trained leavers were placed in jobs. This is approximately the same period as that for the FÁS figures provided. Our national placement figures for the past two years were 16% and 30%. The percentage of all leavers, people trained into jobs, was 78.6% according to the Scottish agency, a remarkably high number. As far as FÁS and the overall labour market is concerned we may determine readily that the most successful programmes are those which can match graduates with companies which provide internships.

From a cursory glance at these figures, I suspect we should concentrate on more long-term strategies with regard to the labour market. It seems too many people are engaged in what I would term low-intensity generic courses. As a result, their prospects for long-term employment are not greatly enhanced. I am unsure whether the IMF examined the structures in FÁS but, considering what the organisation stated some days ago, if FÁS does not have a handle on the number of people it trains and where they end up, then do we need a more rigorous cost benefit analysis of the schemes and courses? How much does training cost? What is the return to the State? Are we training people for the sake of it? That is the question. On the face of it and when one considers the response I received to the parliamentary question, to some extent the answer is "Yes". We simply do not know how effective these courses are either on a financial or a personal basis. One can throw as much money at FÁS as one wishes, but until one is aware of the labour market trends, until one adapts training courses accordingly and understands how effective training is, it is simply a case of spending money without knowing the effectiveness of that spend. As a country, we cannot afford to do that any longer.

Many speakers have referred to self-employed persons, or class S employees as they are referred to in the system, during the past week. Several people made contributions but I did not hear any plans or proposals from speakers with regard to how to deal with the problems, especially the problem of why and how class S workers are deprived of or excluded from job training, the back to education allowance and other such schemes.

I have examined how class S employees are treated within the social insurance and social welfare system. Class A refers to the typical PRSI worker. Class S refers to a self-employed person. Class A workers receive a non means-tested payment or jobseeker's benefit of €196. This is based on 104 weeks or two years. If a self-employed person loses his or her job, he or she may apply for the jobseeker's allowance, which is means tested. If a self-employed person's spouse earns more than approximately €400 per week then he or she does not qualify. This is significant because not only does one not receive the payment, one does not qualify for the back to education allowance, the work placement, retraining schemes or the back to work allowance. Many of these people are simply becoming statistics and are leaving the system completely. Such people are becoming totally disenfranchised. I wish to accentuate the disparity between self-employed workers and others in the social insurance net. If a regular PAYE worker's spouse earns €500,000, he or she would still receive the jobseeker's benefit payment.

Contributions made by self-employed workers are based on a percentage of their income. I propose that we consider raising the percentage of contributions by self-employed people on a voluntary basis such that they may at least avail of retraining and subsidies such as the back to education allowance. Let us allow such people the option of an increase in the rate of their contribution such that they could be included in retraining, the back to education allowance and other such schemes and then, if they lose their jobs, they would have already paid an additional sum of money voluntarily and could avail of these schemes. These people are entrepreneurs. They are self-starters and are the people who create and have created jobs in this country. They have never had to ask the State for any assistance before and when they did recently, the State showed them the door.

Surely it is in all our interests to invest in the very people who have proved they can provide a return on the money spent on them. We should consider increasing the rate of that contribution on an optional basis for the self-employed to ensure more money is fed into the social insurance fund which could allow these workers to avail of re-training if they happen to lose their jobs.

See this speech in context